(Sacramento, CA) 9/11 Truth activist Mark Graham sent a letter to the 12 insurance companies for the airline defendants sued by Larry Silverstein informing them about evidence of controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and Building 7 and offering to put them in touch with building experts who could provide expert testimony.

In 2004 Larry Silverstein, who owned Building 7 and had signed a 99 year lease on the Twin Towers just six weeks before 9/11, sued United and American Airlines 1 and companies providing security at the airports (the "airline defendants"). Silverstein claimed that the airline defendants 2 had been negligent in allowing the hijackers to board and hijack the planes and fly them into the Twin Towers. He claimed that the plane crashes and fires "proximately caused the total destruction" of the Twin Towers, Building 7 and the other buildings in the World Trade Center. (Complaint in Case 1:08-cv-03722-AKH Document 1 Filed 04/17/08, page 2) 3

No mention has been made of the fact that it would have been impossible for those plane crashes and fires to have destroyed the buildings or the abundant evidence of controlled demolition. The defense attorneys could make an affirmative defense of this argument and exculpatory evidence.

As Graham’s letter pointed out, Silverstein’s theory that the plane crashes and fires destroyed these buildings, which also happens to be the U.S. government’s theory, has not been tested in court via expert testimony, scientific facts and evidence. Nor has Silverstein’s theory been proven in the official building reports. It has been proven to be fraudulent by 9/11 Truth activists yet it has been assumed true by the parties and the Court. 56

Silverstein has already recovered $4 billion from his own insurance companies. He is seeking $8.4 billion from the airline defendants for the destruction of the World Trade Center buildings and lost business income.

On September 5 Judge Alvin Hellerstein ruled that there will be a trial in these lawsuits.

On November 21 Judge Hellerstein ruled that United Airlines, whose flight 175 crashed into the South Tower, was not responsible for the destruction of Building 7. That opinion followed a simple principle: a defendant should not be held legally and financially liable for damage that he did not cause. (“Judge Rules United Not Liable for 9/11 Collapse”, by Reuters, published in the New York Times) Similarly, the airline defendants should not be held legally and financially liable for damage that they did not cause.

Graham’s letter framed the issue like this:

There is exculpatory scientific evidence, including expert testimony, proving two separate claims. Potential settlements 4 should take these claims and supporting evidence into account. The defense attorneys should make an affirmative defense based on these claims and this evidence. The claims are:

#1) That it was impossible for the impact of the hijacked airplanes and the resulting fires to destroy the Twin Towers and / or Building 7 of the World Trade Center. This would have been against the laws of physics. It could not have occurred and did not occur.

#2) That the cause of the building collapses was the detonation of explosive demolition charges in a timed sequence placed in the buildings that destroyed the steel columns supporting the buildings. This is known as “controlled demolition” and it is an organized, systematic process for deliberately for taking down steel framed skyscrapers.

It follows that even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the airline defendants were negligent in allowing the hijackers to board and hijack Flight 11 and Flight 175 and fly them into the Twin Towers starting fires in the Twin Towers those plane impacts and fires did not cause or even contribute to the total destruction of the Twin Towers.

Exculpatory evidence is evidence that would absolve of liability, exonerate, or clear of blame, as in a defendant in a lawsuit.

Those of us in the 9/11 Truth movement are familiar with the evidence that controlled demolition using explosives caused the collapses of the Twin Towers and Building 7. The letter named some of this evidence and referred to the NIST final report on Building 7 and the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth website.

Assuming that American Airlines Flight 11 caused or contributed to the destruction of floors 93 through 110, or 18 floors of the North Tower and that controlled demolition caused the destruction of floors 1 through 92, American Airlines should be held liable for no more than 18 / 110 or about 16.4 per cent of the value of the property damage to the North Tower.

Assuming that United Airlines Flight 175 caused or contributed to the destruction of floors 77 through 110, or 34 floors of the South Tower, and that controlled demolition caused the destruction of floors 1 through 76, United Airlines should be held liable for no more than 34 / 110 or about 31 per cent of the value of the property damage to the South Tower.

As Graham wrote, “Legal and financial liability for the damage to the floors below should be properly assigned to those who planned and carried out the controlled demolitions. I do not know who those individuals are. They are as yet publicly unidentified terrorists.”

If the airline defendants make the affirmative defense that they were not responsible for the total destruction of these buildings because controlled demolition took them down it would surely surprise a lot of people and call into question the official conspiracy theory of the government and mass media that blames Arab hijackers for all of the damage.

3 Court documents are accessible through a PACER account which one can set up for free. Documents cost 10 cents a page for the first 30 pages. Orders and opinions are free. The complaint can be downloaded from this web page.

4 There were 21 lawsuits filed against the airlines for property damage. The Court approved settlements of 18 of the 21 cases asserting property damage claims in the 21 MC 101 master calendar in the “ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING JOINT MOTION APPROVING PROPERTY DAMAGE SETTLEMENTS” dated July 1, 2010, document number 88 in case 1:08-cv-03719-AKH. The Court found the proposed settlements of about $1.2 billion to be fair and reasonable. Silverstein did not settle his lawsuits.

5 Judge Hellerstein wrote in the “Statement of Undisputed Facts” (sic) of an opinion in the September 11 litigation, “The 9/11 Commission investigated and reported the relevant facts of the September 11, 2001 terrorists’ hijackings and the events following those hijackings. The parties have accepted the reported version as it relates to the facts of this case, and I do as well.”

(OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING WORLD TRADE CENTER PROPERTIES, LLC TOWER-TWO CLAIMS AGAINST AMERICAN AND GLOBE, January 16, 2009, page 3

6 Judge Hellerstein elaborated on his belief that the 9/11 Commission had done an adequate job and its final report was accurate in a July 16, 2009 opinion and order, saying “I hold that relevant and appropriate findings made by the Commission are potentially trustworthy and admissible. The Commission’s goal was to provide the government and the public with the ‘facts and circumstances surrounding the attacks.’ IAA § 603(a). The Commission heard 160 witnesses, was free from bias (sic), and conducted public hearings that were the adequate equivalent of cross-examination in protecting litigants’ rights.”

OPINION AND ORDER RESOLVING DISCOVERY AND EVIDENTIARY MOTIONS, page 28. This opinion and order is full of other statements by the judge stating he believes the 9/11 Commission.

Well done. As reported previously, I asked an insurance expert why the companies paid the 4 billion without extensive investigations and he said, "They were told to...." It will be interesting to see what happens in this round.

Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.

Tennessee actress Park Overall used to protest at the Champion Paper Company's stock holder meetings. I think she just had a few shares. Opposed to the company's environmental policies in a very direct (she lived near a plant) and emotional way she wasn't about to "buy into" the company in any meaningful way.

This is an ironic and very clever approach to things. It is the most brilliant piece of irony I have seen since the Poles started Solidarity (Solidarność). Just imagine the cheekiness it would take to start a labor union in a "workers paradise!" This effort is much like that.